Hong Kong Baffled by Snowden’s Hideout
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
But there is at least one reason it could be incredibly shrewd: Hong Kong's asylum system is currently stuck in a state of limbo that could allow Snowden to exploit a loophole and buy some valuable time.
Simon Young, director of the Centre for Comparative and Public Law at the University of Hong Kong, told GlobalPost that a decision delivered by Hong Kong's High Court in March of this year required the government to create a new procedure for reviewing asylum applications.
Until the government does this, he said, asylum seekers are allowed to stay in Hong Kong indefinitely.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific...
Additionally, suppose they ask China for extradition and China offers protection in exchange for information. Then Snowden has several useful options. He could suggest that the US back off so he doesn't have to make a decision. He could give in to the Chinese. He could turn himself in and issue a public statement that if the only way he could stay in Hongkong was to sell out his country he would rather face jail.
Even the third option (turning himself in) would be very possibly something that would work in his defence. That is hard to spin against him, "He's so patriotic he'd rather go to jail than sell out his country."
It's like someone being accused of murder and trying to seek asylum in another country (I'm not saying that what he did is identical to murder, just pointing out what "criminal" means here).
When requesting asylum, the requester makes the claim that the charges (of whatever kind) are politically motivated - which may or may not stick in snowden's case. I have no knowledge of the history of extraditions in such matters.
He's also rolling the dice in a major way. Although the asylum laws are sort of up in the air in Hong Kong right now, they could just decide to detain him and put him in jail during the process. Worse still, since China has sovereignty, they could ship him back to China and use him as trade bait with the US.
The concept of murder may not be as obvious as you think. If an American murder fled to Norway, he will likely not get asylum, but Norwegian authorities can't extradict him to the US, because they are not allowed to do that when there is a possibility of capital penalty. The same is the case for many other European nations.
This explains the sometimes seemingly draconian photo ID checks by airlines at the gate. Thanks for clearing this up -- I didn't realize that the return cost was borne by the carrier. Makes much more sense.
So yes, always double check your gate assignments at the airport, as they may have changed.
The fact that he noted his location at all is interesting in that he obviously doesn't want to get caught. So why bring it up? He could have just as easily left that detail anonymous. Makes me wonder if there's a tactic in mind that we might not have seen just yet.
Either that or he's no longer in Hong Kong, sort of like what McAfee did, tell everyone where he's at when he's really no longer there. So when Snowden tells the CIA their office is across the street, it's no more than a tactic to mislead the CIA.
Either that, or he hasn't thought this through at all and I find that hard to believe.
I'm British, and this both saddens and angers me. It's time for a change.
The "China is an oppressive regime" meme makes up a lot of US propaganda and is used to justify all kinds of policies. So the US is put in the awkward position of not being able to engage in the usual diplomatic trade.
Hong Kong is useful b/c it represents the future of Chinese society and is a concentration of wealth and influence. By letting Snowden stay in HK, China can appease its own population while also appearing to stand strong against the US government's demands.
The best hope for the USG is that this blows over. Snowden seems fairly savvy about the media's role and if he's able to continue to shape the discussion there might actually be meaningful outcomes.
It's not a meme. It's fact.
Those are not mutually exclusive.
You mean the place that has no political freedom to speak of and exists under the PRC's thumb?
I'm sure there are cameras and one is easily recognized when getting out of the room.
Or is this just a 48h maneuver to clear up the political situation and then if needed move to one of the embassies in HK that is more supportive?
Depends if you think people want to kill you
All those cameras and employees become a protection. Remember when Israel assassinated that arms trafficker in a luxury hotel and all the video footage was released to the internet. It blew ~10+ operatives cover and caused a major diplomatic row about the fake passports used.
If the US took action at the hotel the cost in terms of US covert operatives in China blown would be in 10-100s of millions of dollars in training and recruitment. If the US used a third party they would expose that third party to Chinese intelligence. Not including the media firestorm such an action would cause.
All security is about raising the cost to the attacker, he has raised it significantly but the US still act if Obama so choose. From the US perspective the damage is done, why bring more negative PR at such a high cost?
Maybe his hypothetical extradition will cause a sort-of diplomatic "mess" between Beijing and Honk Kong, leaving him a limbo where neither HK nor China will grant him total asylum but wont extradite him either
Too cynical?
I would think (hope) he has some cards up his sleeve to protect himself, but at this point I think all the double-agent/working with China talk is wild conjecture.
HK and US have a mutual extradition treaty for actions that are illegal in both countries. Presumably leaking state secrets is illegal in HK. Furthermore, HK is quite willing to extradite to US and does so on regular basis.
So the question of why China (or HK if you prefer), remains.
Hong Kong currently has a moratorium on extradition of asylum seekers.
Diplomatic incident ahoy!
It has only taken on its more negative connotations since the use of "Extraordinary Rendition." Had the term used for that behavior been "Extraordinary Extradition" then you would be complaining when journalists use the term "Extradition"
The other real story is not that the government does this, it is that the government did not tell us it did this. THAT makes it underhand.
If the government came out and said, look we are storing who calls whom and asking telecos to store that information and, with judicial oversight, we will access that information, and we had a debate about it, that would be the proper way.
The government is taking the course "It is better to ask forgiveness than permission".
Obama is going to take the rap for this, and I therefore wonder at the timing. I think it is important to realize two things
1. Obama continued the Bush era policies 2. Obama continued the Bush era policies
Either that is the ONLY way security can be done, or there is some powerful faction within the bureaucracy which has gotten used to working in the shadows.
I think that there is some bunch of bureaucrats who have gotten too used to having information at hand.
I think we as a community need to keep using the regular methods offered to us via democracy (like posting on this online forum) to express our wish that
a) We be told what the government is doing b) Express our displeasure at the direction the style of governance is going
That's the real story to you?
An entity that prints its own money (and uses it to spy on everyone), paying too much for contractors?